MCP Create Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes: create, delete, list, get tools, and execute. However, 'execute-tool' could potentially overlap with server-specific tools, but its description clarifies it's for executing tools on servers, making it reasonably distinct. The set covers different aspects of server management without significant ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb-noun pattern with hyphens: create-server-from-template, delete-server, execute-tool, get-server-tools, list-servers. The naming is predictable and uniform throughout the set, making it easy for agents to understand the action and target.
Tool Count4/5
With 5 tools, the count is appropriate for a server management domain, covering core operations like creation, deletion, listing, and tool interaction. It's slightly lean but reasonable; adding a tool for server status or configuration might enhance completeness, but the current scope is well-defined.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers basic server lifecycle (create, delete, list) and tool interaction (get tools, execute), but has notable gaps. Missing operations include updating server configurations, stopping/starting servers, or monitoring server status, which are common in server management. Agents might encounter dead ends when needing to modify existing servers beyond deletion.
Average 2.9/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('execute') but doesn't disclose traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens during execution (e.g., side effects, output format). For a tool with no annotations and potential mutation implications, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero waste, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking details that could help an agent use it effectively, which slightly reduces its utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of executing a tool (likely a mutation with side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral context, leaving critical gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (args, serverId, toolName) with their types and descriptions. The description adds no meaning beyond this, such as explaining the structure of 'args' or how 'toolName' relates to available tools. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('execute') and target ('a tool on a server'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'execute' entails (e.g., running a script, command, or function) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get-server-tools' (which likely lists tools) or 'delete-server' (which destroys resources). It avoids tautology by not merely restating the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid server ID or tool name), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'get-server-tools' (which might be needed first to identify tools). The description implies usage but offers no explicit context or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('delete') without disclosing critical behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., data loss), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Delete a server') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, return values, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context and implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'serverId' clearly documented as 'The ID of the server'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a server' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (server), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-server-from-template' (creation) and 'list-servers' (listing), but doesn't specify what type of server or deletion scope, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., server must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if active), or sibling tools like 'execute-tool' that might offer alternative deletion methods. The description alone offers no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions implementation details (e.g., type handling in TypeScript) and customization guidance, but fails to disclose critical traits: whether this is a read/write operation (implied creation but not stated), permission requirements, side effects (e.g., server deployment), error handling, or output format. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is excessively long (over 500 words) and poorly structured, with extensive code blocks and implementation notes that don't efficiently convey tool usage. It's front-loaded with a clear purpose but buried in verbose templates and language-specific details. Sentences like '注意事項：...' and template code could be condensed or moved to external documentation, reducing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (creation operation, 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks output expectations (what happens after creation—e.g., server ID, status), error conditions, and integration context with siblings. While it provides template code, it doesn't address how the created server integrates with other tools (e.g., 'execute-tool' on the new server), leaving gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly (code, dependencies, language). The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it references 'language' through template examples and implies 'code' customization, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional syntax/format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the purpose: 'Create a new MCP server from a template' with specific verbs ('create', 'implement') and resources ('MCP server', 'template code'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete-server' (destructive) and 'list-servers' (read-only) by focusing on creation from templates. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'execute-tool' or 'get-server-tools', which slightly reduces differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through template examples and customization guidance ('ユーザーの要求に応じて上記のテンプレートを参考にカスタマイズしてください'), but lacks explicit when-to-use rules or alternatives. It doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., when to use this vs. manually coding a server) or compare with sibling tools like 'execute-tool' for tool execution vs. server creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' but does not clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., list format, pagination), or potential errors. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could benefit from more detail to improve other dimensions without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'tools available' means (e.g., types, formats), how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with one parameter but lacking structured context, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting the 'serverId' parameter fully. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what constitutes a valid server ID or how to obtain it. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('tools available on a server'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-servers' or 'execute-tool', which also involve server-related operations, so it lacks specific distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid server ID, or compare it to siblings like 'list-servers' for server enumeration or 'execute-tool' for tool execution, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List all running servers' implies a read-only operation that returns server information, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description 'List all running servers' is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context like response format or usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more completeness, but it meets the basic requirement for a low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none. A baseline score of 4 is given as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all running servers' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('running servers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-server-tools', which might also retrieve server-related information but focuses on tools rather than servers themselves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to siblings like 'get-server-tools' (which might list tools on servers) or 'create-server-from-template' (for creating servers). This leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-create MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tesla0225/mcp-create/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tesla0225/mcp-create)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-create MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tesla0225/mcp-create/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tesla0225/mcp-create)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tesla0225/mcp-create'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server